Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Previewing The Radeon DPM Performance On Linux 3.11

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filar View Post
    Do I understand it right? The open source drivers will be in a few cases faster the propertiary ones?
    Correct, but in some cases slower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ragas View Post
    Really? This must be the most noninteresting benchmark I've ever seen!

    Everybody already knew, that higher clocks get higher performance. Where is the power consumption graph? Where is the comparison to Catalyst? Did you set the old Power-management to powersave or performance (what clocks were chosen)?
    Ha, its one of the most epic benchmarks in history. The performance is result of DPM+Vadim patch+Marek+Deutcher and many others! Its by far not only clocks.

    Power consumption graph is not interesting because DPM works very same way as Catalyst.
    Comparison to Catalyst is actually irrelevant. Performance is roughly same. But its opensource driver, that's the prime advantage. Support till hardware is dead, support for other operating systems, full integration, full security, no kernel tainting. All those not possible with catalyst, ever.

    Powersave is not working right now, so it was performance.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    As a question, is there any major difference in performance between the new DPM code and the old static PM on high? And if so, will this apply to all the supported cards?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    As a question, is there any major difference in performance between the new DPM code and the old static PM on high? And if so, will this apply to all the supported cards?
    From what I can see, this was tested on an APU, which have had the issue where static PM didn't do anything (the clocks were always set to default). The performance difference shouldn't be nearly like that on dedicated cards. But it's not supposed to be, the DPM code is for energy consumption and thermal management.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Power consumption graph is not interesting because DPM works very same way as Catalyst. Comparison to Catalyst is actually irrelevant.
    Well, it's supposed to work the same way in theory, but it would be nice to confirm that it works that way in practice.

  5. #15

    Default I've been recommending AMD products

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    I've been recommending AMD products mainly because their OSS support, it feels great to be proven right.
    You were recommending products with no proof?
    You're not a very good friend!

    j/k

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    PS : A special compliment goes to bridgman for concentrating on development and not on tweaking the old PM code.
    Actually that credit should go to Alex (and probably Dave too). I wanted us to tweak the old PM code a bit more to improve things while we were trying to get approval for DPM release, but I kinda got outvoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    Taking the flak from all of us must have been a bit harsh
    Yeah, guess I still get credit for taking the flak
    Last edited by bridgman; 07-16-2013 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    The performance difference shouldn't be nearly like that on dedicated cards. But it's not supposed to be, the DPM code is for energy consumption and thermal management.
    It's going to depend on the card. Guessing we'll see similar improvements for the GCN cards, since they also default to pretty low clocks, and *some* of the earlier discrete GPUs, particularly mobile parts.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Gonna try this out later on my HD4200 IGP. Setting power profiles never seemed to stick and previous attempts at dpm was failure as well.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veerappan View Post
    Maybe that's why the article title started with "Preview".

    Also, looks like Urban Terror is bottlenecked somewhere other than the GPU (or at least the GPU/VRAM clocks didn't make much of a difference).
    That was the most interesting of the lot (besides seeing the general degree of improvement). At the 1080 there was only around a 15% difference, but at 1600 it jumped to better than 70%, with the dpm'd driver experience only a slight fps change between resolution.
    So the clock speed made the biggest difference when it comes to larger textures. I'm guessing this is down purely to the increased memory speed?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    As a question, is there any major difference in performance between the new DPM code and the old static PM on high? And if so, will this apply to all the supported cards?
    There might be a difference with some GPUs that have boost states, although I don't know if any dedicated GPUs have them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •